Comments on: Employee’s affair gets her disciplined — was it fair?

By: John

John — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 20:23:26 +0000

The court was right, in law, but a grave injustice was done the officer. That injustice was done by husband, her superiors, the city and the state. Now from a HR stand point she violated the police department’s code of conduct. So she should have been reprimanded. It does not matter how the information came to their attention. Once it did they had a responsibility to act on it. Should they have dismissed her from SWAT? If she was good at what she did, no. If she wasn’t she shouldn’t have been in SWAT in the first place.
Now the husband is an idiot. He filed false charges. That’s misdemeanor fraud. He accused a powerful government employee, the police chief, of having an affair with his wife. That’s just stupid.

By: lynn

lynn — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 05:05:46 +0000

As a former law enforcment officer who believes that employees should conduct themselves ethically when representing the department, i.e. conference, training, daily duties, I believe that there should be more discipline by depeartments regarding that type of behavior. As a female it sickens me that there are and continue to be numerous promiscuois law enforcement officer’s (both male and female) out there who give those of us who attempt to live decent lives a bad reputation regardless of the circumstances behind the conduct. That being said, based off the information provided, the Chief seems to be the innocent victim. And yes, the discipline should be to both the male and female officer in question. However, if that male’s department doesn’t adhere to the same standard, then there is no discrimination. In defense of the female, her husband was out of line and should be charged with making a false report. Not to be bias, but my understanding of the Utah culture does raise a bit of a red flag in that I wonder if it had been a male officer would the same discipline have applied…. Unfortunaltely, the female officer escalated her dirty laundry and the end result was not in her favor. Not only is her reputation tarnished, but she lost a position that is not typically available to females, and the perception of females in a male dominated profession is once again under suspicion…

By: John

John — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:32:01 +0000

The issue at hand is not whether the estranged husband’s lies were believed or not. The department in question followed its own internal procedures and took the step of suspending it’s chief officer while the investigation was being completed. This is standard procedure in nearly every police department of which I know (and I am a former police officer myself). Like it or not, police officers are held to a higher standard of conduct both on and off duty; this is necessary because they are responsible for maintaining the public’s trust. Once trust is gone, it’s very hard to earn back.

By: Margie

Margie — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 22:01:03 +0000

Although perhaps a bit antiquated, municipal employers do invoke morals clauses in some jurisdictions. I agree that the male officer would not necessarily be subject to the same disciplinary action, as his department’s policies could have been different. However, had the female officer in question brought suit based on gender discrimination, because one or more male officers in her department had had illicit affairs without a similar punishment, the outcome might have been different. Her ex-husband’s behavior appears to be what caused the real problem; not a discreet affair that was conducted out of town. I find it difficult to believe that no male officer has ever had a similar liaison that was, or could have become, known to his superiors – her husband’s behavior embarrassed the department, not hers.

By: Mary Bailey Lawson

Mary Bailey Lawson — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 22:26:46 +0000

I agree completely with CT. Where is Deb (and Mike) getting all of this “… behaving in a deceitful manner …” and comparing their (the two officers) behavior with “… shoplifting or engaging in any other type of deceitful behavior …” and being “… caught lying, deceiving or being dishonest about anything.”? The story doesn’t indicate one way or the other about the officer’s response to the inevitable question “Are these allegations true?” so, where is the deception? For all we know, she responded in the affirmative, end of subject (or it should have been).
Either way, two consenting adults meeting in private for whatever purpose (barring illegal behavior) is no one’s business but theirs. I’d like to have seen some charges brought against the estranged spouse. Somebody should put a pinch in his pennies for his outrageous lies and ruining his wife’s career with his petty jealousies.

By: Lin

Lin — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 20:50:18 +0000

I agree with Julie. If I was being held hostage by some nut-job, I wouldn’t care if the SWAT person with the nut-job in their cross-hairs had an affair with another police person. I would be hoping the SWAT person’s aim was good.

By: CT

CT — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 20:45:58 +0000

But how was she deceitful? She acknowledged that she had consensual sex. Not publicizing one’s private activities, that are lawful by the way, is not deceitful. I still think she was a victim of her husband’s malice — period.

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 20:02:01 +0000

I agree with Deb 100%. I cannot say it any better than she did.

By: Julie

Julie — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 18:17:39 +0000

My understanding is that this “public servant” was in the middle of a divorce, so if she went and slept with someone else other than her ex-husband then so what. I don’t think that is an affair or anyoneone’s business, especially when the other officer was from a different department, which means there should have been no conflict of interest. I believe that the one who should have been reprimanded was the husband for slandering not only his ex-wife but the chief. People in glasses houses !!!!

By: Kevin

Kevin — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:00:34 +0000

The complicating issue here is that she was essentially a public servant, and that changes the nature of the policies that an employee is subject to significantly. In this case you had a clear violation of a known and reasonable policy. (although personally I think the policy is a bit extreme) In the private sector, she would have had a case for invasion of privacy and probably the case law that was mentioned in the article. However, the male police officer involved in the affair should absolutely have received the same disciplinary measures in my mind and as an HR practitioner. I would think that her attorney would pursue that angle under Title VII at least.